黄 嘉 維

A smartly written, well-conceived romantic comedy for our generation. At first, the jumps back and forth in the chronology seems jarring but director Marc Webb does a great job pairing each scene jump so that they’re essentially counterpoints of each other.

Rating:  

I cannot begin to describe how terrible this movie was. If you can’t make a sequel that’s at least half as good as the best film in the series, why bother? Just remember this: in the future, organ transplant will no longer require matching for blood type. See, the future is bright!

Rating:  

It’s been a long time since I read the sixth book in the Harry Potter series but, in a way, I’m glad that’s the case. Without knowing for sure what was cut or reinterpreted, I was able to enjoy the movie the way director David Yates wanted the audience to. Like each successive film from the third on, it’s darker than the last and the amount of time spent in the Hogwarts classroom is further diminished. What’s left is a satisfying action movie spectacular and not a by-the-numbers adaptation.

Rating:  

This movie is for the guys, ladies. I Love You, Man follows in the same vein as the recent rash of Apatow-ish dude flicks – crude at times but with a sentimental center. Jason Segel and Paul Rudd play well off each other while Rashida Jones isn’t too much of a wet blanket.

Rating:  

Let’s get this out of the way – this wasn’t a good Star Trek in the sense that it essentially shit all over everything that’s happened post-Enterprise (the last television series). What it is, however, is a really good movie from director JJ Abrams who does enough to make Trekkers happy while not catering to them to the point it alienates everyone else. It’s the best movie with Star Trek in the title in a long, long time.

Rating:  

An extremely lightweight dramedy that doesn’t really seem to go anywhere but is saved by excellent performances from Amy Adams and Emily Blunt.

Rating:  

Solid animation with enough jokes aimed at adults – Stephen Colbert finally gets to be president and look for a shout out to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth – to keep from being a complete bore. Otherwise, nothing really spectacular about this one. It should be noted that I did not see this in 3-D though it’s hard to see how that would have really made for a marked improvement.

Rating:  

It’s been a long time since I’ve read the original source material so I didn’t walk into seeing Watchmen with baggage. Even without making the comparison, the film adaptation of the Alan Moore classic is lacking and that’s taking the fact that the film is over two and a half hours. The first hour dragged and by the time it got good, I’d almost stopped caring. On a positive note, the technical aspects of the film were pretty good.

Rating:  

An excellent dramatization of the Richard Nixon interviews conducted by David Frost. For those who weren’t alive during Watergate, it provides a compelling look at the scandal but, more importantly, it allows Frank Langella to give a layered, almost sympathetic portrayal of Nixon. Now, Michael Sheen, you were Tony Blair in The Queen and you portrayed David Frost in this film, both to acclaim – what the heck are you still doing making Underworld films?

Rating:  

David Fincher helms an emotional tale that would stand alone without the gimmickry of CGI – but it’s the CGI and the aging-in-reverse story that will merit the film an Oscar nomination.

Rating: